http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-craigslist-libel4-2008dec04,0,2332954.story Tough times in Colorado.
I wholeheartedly believe in the right to offend anyone. You don't fuck with the First Amendment or it will fuck with you.
There is a difference between first amendment rights, and slander (which you can easily be sued for, and is not justified by the constitution). Funny thing is, the lady didn't say that his comments weren't true, simply "defamatory". So if he was speaking the truth, this shouldn't be an issue. If he was slandering her name, then he deserves to be taken to court.
A very unusual case. It *might* pass constitutional challenge, IF the charge is based on the guy making false criminal charges.
I have no problem with him being liable in a civil sense. But to be brought up on criminal charges seems over the top.
They better hope they don't do that to someone crazy like...well not me but someone crazy who would get out and do a million worse things now that they have a criminal record. Every district attorney that has ever lived says something like "we are obligated to enforce the law" and then in most cases a few months later the newspaper breaks a story where the DA's brother got let go for drunk driving like ten times.
The constitution justifies slander and libel by govt. officials while doing their official duties. That's it in a nutshell. It's a crime to make false criminal charges. It's illegal to call the fire dept. to a fire that isn't happening. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-592476871.html The difference between "your mama wears army boots" and "your mama robbed the 1st state bank" is substantial...
http://mplscrimewatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/charges-filed-in-false-report-against.html Charges filed in false report of police misconduct August 1, 2007 (MINNEAPOLIS) A Minneapolis woman has been criminally charged for falsely reporting police misconduct after alleging that two, on-duty Minneapolis police officers sexually assaulted her.
That's interesting, gotta admit I didn't know that. But obviously that doesn't apply to this case. Where is that stated?
This is why Ted Kennedy has been allowed to slander anyone he chooses, or for Reid to call Bush a liar, or for Lindsey Graham to call Clinton a criminal (during the impeachment trial). While the part in bold seems limited to "in either house" - meaning on the floor of the senate or house of representatives, it has been extended to a much broader meaning. That slippery slope starts with the thinking that a congressperson talking to the press on the steps of the capitol is for all intents and purposes still making the same kinds of public debate they do on the floor.
